Analysis: For Musharraf, 1973 document wasn’t the constitution

ET: ISLAMABAD: The historic trial of former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf has thrown up a number of puzzling constitutional questions – particularly given that this case is the first of its sort in Pakistan.

Among the questions are the arguments being posed by Musharraf’s legal team – and not only in the treason trial itself.

The basis of the treason trial, the Supreme Court’s historic ‘July 31’ (2009) verdict that held Musharraf guilty of unconstitutional acts, has been challenged by the former president and army chief – and his petition, which has been accepted for hearing, has a number of elaborate arguments.

In his review petition against the ‘July 31’ judgment, Musharraf’s legal team has actually challenged the authenticity of the 1973 Constitution that the former army chief is facing trial for abrogating, subverting and suspending.

 photo 51_zpsc33cfef9.jpg

The argument here is that the promulgation of the document that we know and treat as the Constitution is a mere act of parliament and nothing more.


One Comment on “Analysis: For Musharraf, 1973 document wasn’t the constitution”

  1. Abdul Alim
    January 11, 2014 at 8:13 pm #

    Absolutely correct argument and Pakistan should abrogate 1973 Constitution and form a new Constituent Assembly to frame a new one. Only this is the way Pakistan can be saved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: